Valencia-Blandon v. Gonzales

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding, of evidence submitted only to the Appeals Council, that plaintiff was “entitled to express consideration of Dr. Grace's April 23, 2004 and December 3, 2004 opinions, a statement of the weight given to these opinions, and good reasons for the ALJ's decision”
• holding, of evidence submitted only to the Appeals Council, that plaintiff was “entitled to express consideration of Dr. Grace's April 23, 2004 and December 3, 2004 opinions, a statement of the weight given to these opinions, and good reasons for the ALJ's decision”
• holding, of evidence submitted only to the Appeals Council, that plaintiff was “entitled to express consideration of Dr. Grace's April 23, 2004 and December 3, 2004 opinions, a statement of the weight given to these opinions, and good reasons for the ALJ's decision”
• remanding for further consideration “because the ALJ and the Appeals Council failed to give any reasons for not crediting two assessments of [claimant's] condition by her treating psychiatrist”
• finding the district court erred when it held that, because the treating physician’s opinion went to issues reserved to the Commissioner, the claimant was not entitled to an explanation of the reasons why the ALJ refused to credit the opinion
• “[W]e have held that medical evidence generated after an ALJ’s decision cannot [be] deemed irrelevant solely because of timing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).